On 26 February 2018 The Supreme Administrative Court adopted a resolution (reference no. I FPS 5/17), in which he resolved an important issue relating to the interruption of the limitation period. Let us look at the issues related to the statute of limitations itself. Tax Ordinance provides in principle two limitation periods — three years and five years. Both dates have been valid since the end of the calendar year in which the tax obligation arose.
Controversy on the limitation period
The Act differentiates two cases where limitation provisions should be applied. first they concern a situation where a tax liability cannot be created at all over time. In these cases, both the three-year period (the submission of the tax liability decision) and the five-year period apply.
second the case concerns the situation relating to the limitation of the tax liability itself. The limitation period for the tax liability is five years. In practice, the term of the five-year limitation of the tax liability is most often applied, and it is the result of numerous controversy.
These controversies are due to the fact that, in principle, a limitation period of five years has become a fiction. This is a natural consequence of the ease with which the tax authority can interrupt or suspend its course. In detail it was regulated under Article 70 OP.
The limitation period interrupts the declaration of bankruptcy (Article 70(3)(3a) The PO) and the enforcement measure notified to the taxpayer. As a result of the interruption of the limitation period, this term begins to run again. The application of enforcement measures at five-year intervals may never take place.
Interference in the limitation period
The mention also needs to be described under Article 70(6) OP method of interference with the limitation period consisting in the fact that, in certain cases, the time limit does not start and the period started is suspended. This will take place on:
- 1) Initiating the procedure fiscal criminal offence or fiscal misdemeanour, which has been notified to the taxable person if the suspicion of a criminal offence involves failure to fulfil that obligation;
- 2) to bring an action before the administrative court on a decision relating to that obligation;
- 3) to request the general court to establish the existence or non-existence of a legal or legal relationship;
- •
- the provision of the security in question under Article 33d(2), or the provision of security orders under administrative enforcement rules;
- •
- the notification of entry into the security in certain cases Under Articles 32a(3) and 35(2) Act dated 17 June 1966 about enforcement proceedings in the administration.
Resolution to settle doubts
Supreme Administrative Court by resolution dated 26 February 2018 addressed the issue of interruption of the limitation period by applying an enforcement measure notified to the taxpayer. This resolution was issued on the basis of the following facts. The tax authority issued a determining decision to the taxpayer.
Due to the late lodging of the appeal, the decision became final and on the basis of which enforcement of the taxpayer's assets was carried out. As soon as the enforcement measure was applied, as a result of the sentence of the Provincial Administrative Court, the taxpayer managed to revoke the final decision in its case.
The case went back to the body that made the decision again. This time, the taxpayer referred to the deadline. When the case went to the Supreme Administrative Court, the court held that the case was complex enough to require its resolution.
The Supreme Administrative Court adopted a resolution in which it acknowledged the taxpayer's arguments. The Court of First Instance held that, in the event of the repeal of the decision giving rise to the enforcement proceedings, the effects of the enforcement measure applied are also eliminated. Consequently, there is no interruption of the limitation period and the tax liability may be deferred if the five-year deadline has already expired.
This resolution will certainly affect the effective functioning of the limitation institution for legal proceedings.
Author:
Mikołaj Stanisławski
From 2017 related to the firm Russell Bedford Poland. In 2007 graduated from the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Warsaw. In years 2008-2011 he made an attorney's application. From 2011 entered on the list of lawyers at the District Bar Council in Warsaw. In 2016 He graduated from the Postgraduate Tax Studies and Tax Law of the University of Warsaw. Specializes in tax and tax matters.